[wp_tn7p6bavuqpm6t4w] Make plan review choose the best credible solution shape

plugins/review-suite/scripts/review_plan.py

@@ -123,14 +123,20 @@ def load_plan_input(args: argparse.Namespace) -> tuple[str, str]:
 
 def build_prompt(plan_text: str) -> str:
     return (
-        "Review this implementation plan and scope.\n\n"
-        "Focus on:\n"
-        "- simpler implementation paths\n"
-        "- reuse opportunities\n"
-        "- duplicate or redundant logic risk across planned and adjacent paths\n"
-        "- bad boundaries or unnecessary complexity\n\n"
-        "Return only actionable items with concrete edits or concrete design changes.\n"
-        "Do not give style-only feedback.\n\n"
+        "Review this implementation plan against the repository.\n\n"
+        "Before recommending a solution shape:\n"
+        "- identify the root cause, canonical owner, and invariants that must hold\n"
+        "- find materially distinct credible solution shapes supported by the repository\n"
+        "- compare those shapes; if one solution is clearly the only credible one, say so "
+        "instead of inventing alternatives\n"
+        "- recommend the best shape in this order: contract correctness; canonical "
+        "ownership; fewer durable concepts and less coupling; justified blast radius and "
+        "validation; then diff minimality only as a tie-breaker\n\n"
+        "End with exactly one verdict: PROCEED, REVISE, or RETHINK.\n"
+        "Support it with concise repository evidence and actionable plan changes.\n"
+        "Use PROCEED when the proposed shape is best, REVISE when bounded plan edits are "
+        "enough, and RETHINK when the root cause, owner, or solution shape should change.\n"
+        "Do not give style-only feedback or treat RETHINK as scope authority.\n\n"
         "=== BEGIN PLAN ===\n"
         f"{plan_text.strip()}\n"
         "=== END PLAN ==="

plugins/review-suite/skills/review-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -20,4 +20,8 @@ Rules:
 - Prefer `--input-file`.
 - With no input flags, the script reads `task_plan.md` from the current directory; stdin is accepted for pipes.
 - Use once per meaningful plan draft.
+- Inspect the repository to identify root cause, canonical ownership, and relevant invariants before recommending a shape.
+- Compare only materially distinct credible solution shapes. Accept one obvious solution instead of inventing alternatives.
+- Rank contract correctness, canonical ownership, durable concepts/coupling, and justified blast radius/validation ahead of diff size; use diff size only as a tie-breaker.
+- Return exactly one `PROCEED`, `REVISE`, or `RETHINK` verdict with concise evidence and actionable changes. `RETHINK` recommends reconsideration; it does not grant scope authority.
 - Verify findings before changing the plan.

plugins/review-suite/tests/test_review_local.py

@@ -636,6 +636,24 @@ def test_agent_wrapper_help_keeps_useful_targeting_controls_visible() -> None:
     assert "--status" in review.build_parser().format_help()
 
 
+def test_review_plan_prompt_chooses_the_best_credible_solution_shape() -> None:
+    prompt = review_plan.build_prompt("Keep the existing wrapper.")
+
+    for requirement in (
+        "root cause, canonical owner, and invariants",
+        "materially distinct credible solution shapes",
+        "only credible one",
+        "contract correctness",
+        "diff minimality only as a tie-breaker",
+        "exactly one verdict: PROCEED, REVISE, or RETHINK",
+        "RETHINK as scope authority",
+    ):
+        assert requirement in prompt
+    assert prompt.endswith(
+        "=== BEGIN PLAN ===\nKeep the existing wrapper.\n=== END PLAN ==="
+    )
+
+
 def test_local_review_wrappers_expose_short_wsl_flag() -> None:
     for help_text in (
         review_followup.build_parser().format_help(),